The real stories from inside the F1 paddock

A pet hate

The Rosberg-Hamilton in Spa has brought out a number of those people who like to accuse journalists of bias because they share the same nationality of one or other of the protagonists. One commenter, called Robert, summed up my views on this subject. “I do hate how people bring up the subject of being British in a negative way to further their opinions,” he wrote. “It immediately marks the writer out as none too bright in my opinion.”

I am happy to forgive people for being passionate about the sport they love and perhaps going too far in their remarks, but the accusation of nationalistic bias is something that I take as an insult and I feel it is all the more outrageous because the accuser does not have the wit to understand that such slurs are more a reflection of the person making them than they are a reflection of the target. In order to level such a charge one must believe that there are intelligent people who have blind, unquestioning devotion to a country and all of its subjects – and for me that is something that only a stupid man can believe. As a journalist one strives, if one has any professional pride, to be as objective as possible, and to cut through the smoke and mirrors to try and tell the story as it is. This is the reason for our existence. If one wants to be a propagandist it is a choice which one can make – and it pays far better – but one must accept that one must then have the opinion of one’s paymaster. Intelligent men through the ages have seen through nationalism and exposed it for what it is.

“Nationalism is an infantile thing,” wrote Albert Einstein. The poet and philosopher George Santayana phrased it differently but delivered the same message: “To me,” he wrote, “it seems a dreadful indignity to have a soul controlled by geography.”

The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer was more brutal in his assessment: “Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.”

Having a different view on a subject when there is a conflict between two different nationals can sometimes appear to be bias, but more often than not, this comes because the national media speak the language of the individual involved and thus have a better understanding of the reasons and the character of the person who acted as they did.

Share this:

Related

173 Responses

the accusation of nationalistic bias is something that I take as an insult and I feel it is all the more outrageous because the accuser does not have the wit to understand that such slurs are more a reflection of the person making them than they are a reflection of the target.

Not really. Everytime I read a piece from Roebuck he takes swipes at Senna and Schumacher while at the same time hailing Prost. British journalists without bias? I don’t believe it. That said national bias is a normal thing in F1. However to claim there is no bias is not normal.

Well there is obvious bias in certain media areas, over certain nationalities of driver. While I wouldn’t think that is particularly the case with you Joe, as I’d say that like most proper enthusiasts, you just like to see a damn good driver at work. However, as in any workplace, there must be some drivers that you like, over other ones. That is just human nature. Having said that, it is true that Nigel Roebuck has written many pieces critical of M Schumacher and Senna, but I’d say that was less to do with their nationality, and more to do with how personal traits work out on the track! It is also the case that Nigel clearly can find no fault in Alain Prost, but this is more likely to be because of a personal liking for the guy rather than the fact he is French!

Yes his writings are thoughtful and amusing, sometimes a bit too, well you know what I mean! But having said that, who could not love GV or not want to write about him. Possibly the most passionate racing driver ever? And, AS, In fairness, I think Nigel liked parts of him and admired his relentless approach, and his speed which was second to none, but he just didn’t like the ruthlessness, although he never seemed to find that aspect of Prost’s personality to be a problem for him….

Yes; I know exactly what you mean! Nigel is a journalist. A good one. However, during F1’s ‘golden’ era – 1980s/90s I often felt that he trod that very fine line between being a journalist and being a PR man for AP. I think possibly, it ultimately came down to the issue of ‘access’. He had (what appeared to the fan) to be unlimited access (or as near as possible) to AP. Obviously good news for journalist and fans/readers alike. A big bonus for a journalist to have access and lots of printable material from one of the greats. The problem was I thought at the time (and still do) that he gave the impression of fulfilling the role similar to that occupied by Alistair Campbell to TB (Director of Communications) during their time in government. I was a huge admirer of Senna and enjoyed reading the writings of many of the sport’s top journalists. At times, some of them (such as David Tremayne) were critical of AS (with some justification perhaps) however, DJT and others always seemed to have their journalists hats on and gave a balanced view without any hint of anything approaching bias. Nigel just seemed to fulfil a different role where Prost was concerned and his writings (to me at least) just seemed to get predictable. Still, where GV is concerned, definitely yes – a great – universally loved by millions worldwide then and still today and rightly so. Give Nigel credit, I learned a lot about GV from Nigel’s writings (and of course the brilliant Gerald Donaldson). It’s of no consequence that he won only a few races and no world titles. Like Senna, he died doing something he loved – driving a car which wasn’t the best to the absolute limit and beyond – on a knife-edge like nobody else has done since.

I can tell you the Italian fans who are familiar with British coverage think very highly of it. It’s professional and unbiased unlike the Italian state tv or sky (actually, the state coverage, Rai, is strangely much less biased than Italian sky)

How bias can the Italian fans/media even be seeing that there isn’t even an Italian driver in F1 (and hasn’t been one for years). And more and more Italians are becoming less and less interested in the perenially underperforming Ferrari team.

“absence of bias”, you’re joking, right? Or you don’t watch Lazenby and Herbert on SkyF1? The other Sky guys are fine, with Brundle and Davidson particularly good at staying neutral. The BBC guys are impartial too. But Lazenby and Herbert sound like pub thugs in their ardent support for Hamilton. Get rid of those two zealots and your claim will be 100% correct.

I think it’s more simple than that. You either read your local news or English language ones mainly (if the two are not the same), and the majority of the news in English (on face value) come out of Britain.

A significantly smaller part of _all_ the news were trying to enhance the balance in their headlines, the majority of them went the easy way and screamed “ROSBERG DID IT ON PURPOSE”, suggesting something that probably wasn’t there.

Not too hard to come up with feeling some bias there, but that’s what can happen when you trade for clicks.

Preface: I have no doubt about your national – neutral reporting. The world on the other hand views things totally different
1. Why does every major international sporting event play national anthems at awards ceremonies? F1, Olympics, World Cup, etc.?
2. Why is F1 always looking for “American” drivers or teams? Marketing, yes, but also a national vacuum that requires filling.

Every evil perpetrated on the world has been perpetrated in the guise of nationalism or religion, and sometimes both.
To believe that media do not then play to nationalism is just wrong. Every time a driver is described as British or German is to what end? Fanning the national interest of their clientele.

Nico did himself no favours in his interview by suggesting that those booing were doing so for nationalistic reasons or because they are Hamilton fans. He insulted all RACING fans who do not like to see a driver take out a competitor in what seemed a stupid move, and then gain an advantage by it. To sing out it was deliberate “to make a point” (What point?) is worse still.

Nico is hailed as being intelligent and a good strategist, but his comments and revelations make him look as if he has not idea what he is doing.

Really, Brian? So, why were all those French and Belgian and Italian fans booing Nico? Please. Your comment insults intelligence in general. I don’t begrudge people from being fans of a particular driver, but to claim that the booing was as altruistic as you suggest beggars the imagination.

Every country’s media has their own bias (Both in that their driver is great, and that their driver is never at fault), the Aussie media always took Webber’s side, the British media take Jenson and Lewis’s side, Ferrari can do no wrong in Italy
Uruguay defended Suarez
Its just the way of world sport mass media coverage, so you are probably the exception – rather than the rule – if you don’t have some patriotic bias
Most other times the accuser would probably be right.

I don’t see how ‘Robert’ can defend those comments. Under any circumstances they are inflammatory. Under these circumstances as an outsider looking into the journalistic goldfish bowl, I would interpret the insult as being somewhat personal.

You being above getting into a tit for tat argue meant over such nonsense I can only admire the restraint you’ve shown Joe.

As you pointed out so well, he surely revealed in himself exactly that which he accused you.

I agree that nationalism is a sad way to view the world and Nico on reflection shouldn’t have said what he did. He was however being put on the spot with some very strong comments, some of which were unfair IMHO. However he and Mercedes have been accused of the same bias and that Lewis’s dnf’s were part of a nationalist comspiracy to support their German driver.
This is all nonsense of course and doesn’t deserve referencing in my view. Nico deserves some slack in this regard and the conspiracy theorists should be completely ignored.
Lewis has been taking liberties with Nico ontrack all season relying on him to back out of tight siruations. It is a driving trait of champions and Lewis has compounded it with off track comments like “Nico is not my friend” etc. Nico on the other hand has been biting his lip and taking these comments on the chin but he has realised that unless he stood up to Lewis ontrack and offtrack he was going to be disadvantaged. I don’t believe that he took Lewis out intentionally and Lewis knew exactly what he meant in the briefing after the race. However he twisted and exaggerated what Nico said and went public with it. That was disgraceful in my opinion and just shows that Lewis is well capable of playing games too. Lewis knew he was alongside and could have given him more room if he had wanted to but he thought that Nico would be compliant as usual and back off. That was Lewis’s mistake and now he will be more carefull in future. Good job Nico.

Nico “was” backing off and trying to pull in behind Lewis, he just mis-judged it.
No driver would leave his nose in that vulnerable position on purpose.
The bit about him “making a point” is to give an excuse to his Mercedes bosses as to why the collision happened at all.
It,s side effect was to inflame Lewis which in a way helped his cause if Lewis has also upset them by revealing confidential debrief details.
If anybody thinks it will make a blind bit of difference to the way Lewis Hamilton races then they are deluding themselves.

Agreed, I just read the comments from Alain Prost, John Watson and I am glad to see they agree with my assessment. Weak management, Lewis exaggerating the post race comments and Nico making a point. The nationalistic comments and arguing are just a distraction and are irrelevent to all but those who still believe where you are born defines you. I don’t nor do i believe that there’s anything “evil” in either Lewis or Nico. Toto, Paddy and Niki do not have the skills to control this situation and perhaps it shows a weakness in Mercedes approach to F1 management. Ross has said the you need a reference to run a team properly and the recent events have vindicated that view IMHO. Looking at polls people seem to be equally divided in the ones I have seen but there is an enourmous amount of crap and insults being bandied about in the name of nationalism which is ridiculous. I have never watched a race to see one nation beat another. I have never cared about such nonsense and I never will. In my view a minor incident has been blown out of proportion with a little bit of help from Lewis but it is fodder for the media and we should learn to take most of it with a pinch of salt. As Gaz points out it will not make one jot of difference to Lewis or Nico. I still think the booing was pathetic. So what have learned. Lewis knew exactly the point that Nico was making and he reacted to minimise its effect. Nico has now managed to instill an element of doubt in Lewis’s mind which was the main aim. Thank god or whatever deity you worship for that because their rivalry is highly entertaining.

I would have been much happier with the situation had it not become so politicized, i.e, by the booing of all those Croatian “Hammy” fans after the race and “Hammy” then using the media as a blunt weapon for his version of events.

He’s a talented driver, but, obviously, insecure (because of Nico’s ability?). “Hammy” has always been acknowledged as the faster of his teammates …. until this year. And, an individual’s true character is always revealed under pressure.

I think you should consider that Hamilton telling the media what was going on was a direct response to the unfairness of what happened on the track. As a believer in transparency I don’t have a problem with what Lewis did. It was a lot more honest than what Nico did.

I agree, Lewis had to move quickly because the damage limitation exercise was already on overdrive (Wolff saying that Lewis had misinterpreted what Nico said etc) so he had to get it out there and define the position. Some Hamilton haters cited that as throwing his dummy out of the pram, but I bet put in the same position they’d be squealing louder than a pig in a bacon factory

I don’t see how Hamilton telling the press “porkies” (according to Wolff) is “more honest” than anything Rosberg did on Sunday. I also don’t think Rosberg was unfair. Ruthless? Yes. Cunning? Yes. A little sloppy in the manoeuvre? Yes. Hamilton, on the other hand, was brazenly dishonest, manipulative, and hypocritical. We are all entitled to opinions, and I respect yours, Joe, but it’s little wonder some people harvest suspicions of bias, jingoism, etc. It’s all down to how well an argument is backed up.

Don’t you understand that Toto was fighting fires? It is not rocket science. Lewis said what he said and told the media that those who were there would corroborate. Toto’s job is to achieve the best possible result for Mercedes. Work it out.

Two people at the meeting denied Hamilton’s claim. The team source initially reported to be backing Hamilton’s claim later said he (the source) was taken out of context. That’s three refutes. Damage control? Perhaps, but who’s to say Hamilton didn’t misunderstand, embellish or misquote what was said? It may have been an innocent mistake, or it may have been a deliberate act, like Rosberg’s move on-track. Who knows? My point is, Joe, it’s human nature to put two and two together and jump to a conclusion, such as Lewis feeling Nico confessed, or Nico perceiving Lewis was hectoring him, or the public sensing pro-Hamilton bias from some British journos. As I said, it’s all down to how well an argument is backed up.

Joe are you now saying that Nico was dishonest and actually punctured Hamiltons tyre on purpose with his front wing …. without losing his nose and continuing onwards , and all this while racing for position

Wise words from Lewis. “Today we came together as a team and discussed our differences.
Nico and I accept that we have both made mistakes and I feel it
would be wrong to point fingers and say which one is worse than the other. “

As an long time F1 fan from Croatia, i believe that Lewis could have make the room but he decided not to, also Nico could have back out sooner, but decided not to, and when unstoppable force comes onto immovable object chaos begins.

Joe, your blog is neutral and all, but for instance I, as an neutral viewer and someone who doesnt support Mercedes, Rosberg or Hamilton, I think that some journalists and some websites went a bit over the top with Rosberg blame game, without acknowledging that Hamilton would have been wiser to avoid him there instead of relying on Nico. Also Hamiltons comments to the media after the race dont really come across as fair. He said Rosberg hit him to make a point, but the truth is Rosberg didnt back out of a move to make a point.

The fact that cars touched was merely a consequence of actions done by both drivers (Hamilton not giving room and Rosberg not backing out). But I have yet to see a british web page labeling it like that.

Please don’t let idiots like Robert ruin the comments section for the rest of us. I don’t know many other journalists who respond to our questions (sometimes clever, sometimes not so clever) as much as you do (for free!). The majority of us appreciate it.

I can’t believe such a highly intelligent chap as Rosberg would use this in one of his post race interviews? He intimated that the booing was just because the fans involved where British!? I think he missed the point, they where just paying fans who missed out on a good battle/race!

Joe, when considering comments from the hoi-polloi you must always, always remember that 50% of the population is below average intelligence. And average, sadly, is not a shining example of, well, much of anything…

Heh! The same thought crossed my mind too. I must remember some of those quotes…

Anyway; excellent piece, Joe. There’s no doubt at all that while British fans naturally enjoy seeing a compatriot do well, they’re never slow to recognise talent wherever it comes from. And that goes double for journalists.

One of the things that has always attracted me to motorsport – one of the minor things, to be sure, but nevertheless – is the distinct lack of tribalistic nationalism about it. National anthems may be played, flags flown, and in the past national racing colours worn, but there are no representative national teams. Even Ferrari, which assumes the rôle of one for many, isn’t; it’s Ferrari SpA. Italians are free to support Sauber or Williams, and no-one looks askance at a French or Australian tifoso. Long may this continue.

Interesting points raised. Certainly it is true that fair play is a British concept. The French do not have a similar expression in their language and they use “le fairplay”. Racing did start out as a nationalist concept, with the Gordon Bennett Cup but very quickly it became a competition of ability rather than nationality. Teams are all international. The only difference is the badging, which us why the concept of an all American team is flawed. You need the best of the best, not the best that one country can offer. Nationalism still breaks out in racing from time to time but it is generally more to do with drivers: Mansell, Schumacher and Alonso all had armies of flag-waving fans of that ilk.

As someone with close relatives in the trade, it churns my guts when anyone casually offers that you are biased in some way, Joe. It takes precious little imagination to pick up nationality as an argument, even easier than ad hominem.

(ask me about the time a political campaign got nowhere planting a story that their opponent had beaten his wife. Where’s the police report?)

Well, as it turns out, we have a synonymous phrase: pet peeve (dunno if you use that too.) It’s just that it’s an idiomatic that people say without thinking about whether the two words really fit… two words that we use as if it’s a single word (which it might be in German).

So, really, it’s no different at all. It’s just that I was seeing/hearing “pet hate” for the first time, so the incongruous fit of the two words stuck out like a sore thumb… whereas I grew up hearing “pet peeve” forever and thus never thought about it… until now.

Agree wholeheartedly Joe, but if you haven’t seen it already, you should check out some of the nationalistic bias in some of the comments made by posters in the sports sections of a certain national newspaper (and it’s not pro-British comments either). They absolutely defy belief. The level of hate, trolling, venom and spit and nationalistic garbage is astonishing, to such an extent that I’m incredulous to understand how and why the paper allows it to continue. I can only hope it’s upholding the value of free speech, which is fair enough. It appears that if they were to do it in forums in their own country they would be banned, but we are more lax. The comments passed on this forum are mild by comparison, nevertheless there’s a simple message for them: put up, shut up, or get out, and if you want to read articles written in such as way as you feel supports your own bias, go read your own national newspaper.

That said, you blog clearly favors Hamilton. If it’s not nationalistic bias driving that, what is it? If it’s sone other form of bias that slants your articles fine, but don’t pretend to he impartial. Nobody is.

err Joe Lewis has never played fair ever since he entered f1 in 2007 notwithstanding his obvious talents in the car out of it he has always played mind games with his teammates often overlooking the teams interests (eg hungarian gp) and definitely costing mclaren the championship in 2007

I can only assume that you are either trolling here or havent read many of Joe’s articles. I have never detected any favouritism or bias in Joes articles, in fact now that I think about it who are your favourite current drivers Joe?

Fair play in F1? Gone long ago … back to Moss, that was fair play era.

I wouldn’t consider Hamilton as a fair player. Nor Alonso. Nor Vettel. Nor Schumacher, Senna or Prost while looking into the past.

There’s such a high amount of money involved in F1 that fairness gets lost by the wayside. And that starts with the commercial owners at the top and ends with the drivers.

As for Hamilton, you can’t blatantly lie to race stewards even if your team tells you to do exactly that. It’s unconceivable and unacceptable. Moss would never have performed such a stunt.

Another thing is there were stories of politicking against Alonso within the McLaren team while they were team mates. Take Hungary, for example, where it all went awry. Actually Alonso’s blocking in the pit lane was a direct reaction to Hamilton not letting Alonso pass like it was decided by the team. Hamilton always played his dirty tricks and now he gets a dose of his own medicine served by his team mate and he doesn’t like it.

As for Senna he was probably the most honest of the super stars because he later admitted ramming an opponent intentionally off the track quite frankly. It was just his driving conduct that was unacceptable but there was not a problem with his honesty.

There was a reason why Prost was called the terrorist with insiders. He used to mock his team mates (Arnoux) that were a threat to him pace wise and he even went so far to get caught in action with his team boss’s wife in an effort to get rid of his long term Renault contract and step into the mighty Mclaren. Later he repeated the trick to get hands on the mighty Williams although in this case no wife was involved however his term to compare his Ferrari driving ability to that of a truck did the trick.

As for Alonso remember the §100m fine? As for Vettel his disrespect for team orders in Malaysia was not honest but at least good for racing. Same with Hamilton and Hungary. I strongly oppose team orders by the way.

We must not forget that sometimes drivers and teams provide exlusive access to journalists belonging to one particular nationality. I once witnessed a Hungarian colleague of mine thrown out of the McLaren motorhome by Matt Bishop because he mistakenly tried to participate in a press conference exlusive to British reporters. A gentlemen working for The Daily Mail, a certain Mr. McEvoy assisted by picking up said colleague’s voice recorder and throwing it in his direction.

As far as I know (I wasn’t there), this weekend at Spa, Lewis Hamilton made his famous remarks in a press conference held exclusively to the British press on the second floor of the Mercedes motorhome while the international media was briefed by Mr. Wolff and Mr. Rosberg downstairs. Surely, if this is true, such policies won’t help to improve the team’s image of handling the intra-team rivalry.

Interesting comments regarding the behaviour of McLaren’s PR king. Hamilton always appear to come across as a bit of a brat, looking for a bit of fish for the massive chip on his shoulder. Looking at the incident, I think everyone’s missing the point, Rosberg could of easily knocked himself out of the race with the manoeuvre. He’s not that talented to be able to control the car that well, with that type of precision, remember he can see less of the front of the car from his viewpoint.

So he’s not aloud to feel aggrieved at been taken out by his championship rival? That makes him a brat? Hmmm, so what about Rosberg “lingering” on what happened in Hungary, despite the team EXPLICITLY stating that Lewis was in the right, and Nico taking matters into his own hands. THAT’S not being a brat? Give me a break Paul. If someone like Joe Saward is saying Lewis isn’t a brat I think you should at least consider your viewpoints a little more carefully, rather than making outlandish statements like Lewis having a ‘massive chip on his shoulder’ as you put it.

Paul and Aturi83 – Are you actually going to provide any evidence or a coherent argument, or do I have to prise it out of you? Like Joe says, to single out Lewis Hamilton as being a brat is utterly ridiculous. You’re almost as bad as the utterly horrendous nonentity that is Oliver Brown of the Telegraph. If you single Lewis out, why not Sebastian Vettel and Fernando Alonso for their track limits argument at Silverstone or Felipe Massa when he berated the FIA on team radio at Interlagos last year? How about Mark Webber for his victimisation complex with Vettel, Nico Rosberg for taking matters into his own hands at Spa. Please tell me why you think Hamilton seems to think he’s the victim. If anything, the lad’s the least bratty. Please find me the last time he UNJUSTIFIABLY blamed the stewards/ his team/ another driver. And don’t you dare come up with the rubbish of 2011 which was 1 small period 3 years ago and has nothing to do with 2014. I HATE seeing unjustified abuse of somebody, whether it’s Lewis Hamilton, Nico Rosberg, Sebastian Vettel or any other driver. It seems like your the ones with the chip if you hate him so much.

I have great respect for Lewis the driver, if I had to bet my life on “everyone has the same car, who will set the fastest lap”, I’d be hard pressed to pick anyone but him, but I still do understand why people have that impression of him.

As someone who wears his heart on his sleeve, I would probably appear the same myself if I had a microphone and a camera in my face at given times. I guess I could come off as arrogant/humble/moody/sulky/whiney/positve depending on when and where you caught me.

I’ve heard directly from people who work for one of his sponsors speak negatively about him, but rightly or wrongly, he probably WAS tired, disinterested and fed up during the engagement. Equally, my friend met him during a McLaren event for race fans and said he was engaging, polite and friendly and it was a positive experience.

Perhaps, with the different emotions, it’s a show at least he is genuine when interviewed straight after the race before he has time to put on the “corporate required mask”.

He is a very polarising figure and evokes strong opinions, last time I ever posted on the BBC was a few years ago when I was called racist for basically saying “I didn’t like his current attitude/interview persona/having rappers hanging around the garage while crashing out making uncharacteristic mistakes but he’s still one of the top 3 drivers, though I find it hard to root for him”

A stupid comment perhaps, but on reflection after that, It’s fair to say I don’t know any of the drivers personally, so It’s probably for the best then, as my friend said to me “I don’t even watch the interviews, I like / don’t like drivers purely for on track stuff, the rest is chuff”.

From what I saw, Lewis had the corner and Nico failed to take adequate action to avoid a collision. No wonder Lewis was fuming regardless of whether Nico is suddenly Dick Dastardly and did it on purpose or it was simply a misguided attempt to do something.

Lewis can come across as a brat. This has been a topic of discussion many times in the past in my F1 social circles. It’s not just my own opinion, but a perception that many people hold. I was never a fan of Lewis, specifically because he seemed bratty.

Since he moved to Mercedes, my opinion of him has improved significantly. I now realize that he is really not a brat, he just wears his emotions on his sleeve. He lacks an emotional filter, so to speak. He is human, like all of us.

I think my previously negative opinion of him had to do with McLaren. I really do. McLaren might as well have been his “parents” for lack of a better word. He grew up with the team. He was “sheltered” by the team. As he grew up and became his own man, he became restless, and this led to a perception that he was a brat. Really, he just wanted to break free (paging Freddy Mercury).

Lewis still wears his emotions on his sleeve. Good for him. I like seeing the human side of people. But I feel like those emotions have become more refined, mature, and less driven by restlessness.

I honestly never thought I would warm up to Lewis, but I have. I am glad I have too, because despite the way I once felt about him, I have always seen him as one of the most naturally gifted drivers out there.

Actually, and again I have some knowledge of this, Ron Dennis made sure that Lewis and Anthony were properly advised when Lewis got his 2007 drive. RD did all the right things, and that didn’t surprise me as although he can be a bit odd, RD always seems to bat a straight wicket on all subjects.

Ron Dennis aside, it was clear from Lewis himself that he wanted a change. If everything was Hunky Dory at McLaren, then Lewis would not have left. He wanted to win, and he wanted to feel like a contributor, and not property; so he left. Lauda had a chat at the right moment, and greased the skids.

My interpretation of the situation at least. Don’t interpret this as a disagreement with you, Damian, because this time it’s not.

Jenny Gow the BBC’s pit lane reporter said something interesting about Lewis on radio this week. She said that Lewis ‘is the most emotional sports person she’s ever encountered’. As Lewis himself has said many times he wears his heart very much on his sleeve.

This clearly leads to much personal interpretation. Both from us F1 fans and casual observers.

One thing which I feel can be (mis)interpreted as bias is due to cultural values. An observer tends to judge behaviour based on a set of values. They may apply this set of values without bias across all nationalities. However if a reader has a different set of cultural values, then they may feel that a driver who is behaving in line with their values is being unfairly criticised.
It is likely that in general drivers of one nationality will share the same set of cultural values as journalists of the same country, which can lead to the impression that there is bias based on nationality.
This is in addition to shared language, greater access and so on that media of a country have to drivers of that country.
It is often lazy to accuse people of nationalistic bias, but I think that at times the difference in cultural values can compound this.

Well said! For those of us who straddle several cultures and languages, this is self-evident. As for Joe’s vehemence in denying bias, there is a saying in German: “If you stand on a dog’s tail, it will yelp!” – that at the risk of being told to go read something else.

Journalists are allowed personal opinion – and no doubt favourites, personal affinity and just plain benefit of the doubt to those they admire or have closer ties to – demanding that journalists are not human leads to the conundrum of journalists falling over themselves to give equal weight to every viewpoint for fear of appearing partial. I’ve worked in the media for a long time – a brief stint in BBC news was borderline comical for all the fiddle some broadcast journalists got into trying not to give weight to opinions they KNEW were more credible than others.
The national bashing idiots descend on most F1 websites and throw out this whole ‘British media’ bias – when as we all know the proper F1 journalists know just as many Italians, Germans etc as their fellow islanders. Sure the mainstream UK press has a love/hate fascination with Lewis Hamilton (love to mention him as it gets page hits/love to demonise him as he’s young, black and therefore probably an easy target) but the mainstream press of each country tends to highlight their own nations sports stars.

Joe clearly admires Lewis, and clearly has a lot of time for him, but I don’t think anyone with sense thinks this is out of some misplaced patriotic pride. Besides anybody reading this blog or the magazine for an opinion less technical journal is in the wrong place. Many of us disagree with some of your conclusions Joe but you have the insight and the connections and therefore your opinion holds weight. And opinion backed up by knowledge is always worth reading.

Meh, every country does it to some extent so maybe calling it out kind of keeps everyone honest or at least aware of other views. You have to admit that on this occasion, the British press was all to eager to put out big accusing headlines based exclusively on what Hamilton said Rosberg said, for example. Multiple sources is always the ticket!

If you study the international media you will find that with one or two notable exceptions, it is far more fair and balanced than most other nations. I say this because I have seen a great deal of different coverage from my travels and from living in other places.

Oh believe me, I know international media quite well from working in TV news for many years. When I worked for RAI I would often cover the same story in three different ways for each of the three news channels and their own political slant. So you might say, I’m a bit of an expert at sniffing out the subject. BTW, Tabloids, they were invented in the UK if I’m not mistaken.

I think nationalism is an expanded version of tribalism/family e.g. looking after and supporting someone the same as us. Ironically supporting our countries/tribes is heavily encouraged in every sporting event that is supposed to bring us together. The Olympics, Commonwealth Games, Soccer & Rugby world cups.
The nationalist card is played heavily in all of these events and a large percentage of the public lap it up.
But do the public take it seriously? Do these people who who claim nationalistic bias by others suffer from it themselves? Do they mean what they say or are they playing to the parochial?

I got a good kicking on anotther thread on another site for daring to assert that Lewis could have left a bit of room, regardless of Nico’s actions. People love to simply state right/wrong and dismiss all other points of view rather than enjoy the discussion. It saddens me.

So you admit that the German coverage of Nico Rosberg is probably more accurate than British coverage? So, since German coverage has Rosberg saying he did not deliberately cause the collision, I presume you will be changing your view on the incident?

“What planet are you on? I have written my view and it is not going to change because a few Germans think differently.” Priceless considering the context.:) One point I would like to make is that Nico’s comments were in reply to the question why people booed him on the podium which was unfair in my opinion. It was a loaded question and designed to create controversy and this time Nico fell for it. I am not denying their right to do so as there is no law against are entitled to do so. However I am also entitled to my opinion and I thought it to be unfair and immature.
I am also of the opinion that those who think Nico was cheating and did it on purpose know very little about F1 racing. It was a fleeting moment in the race that resulted in a disaster for Lewis but only because Nico refused to give way. The same contact could happen 1000 times without any consequence and anyway the initial victim was Nico who lost part of his front wing.
But if we are going to demonise Nico for his comments then Lewis also deserves criticism for “basically” lying to the press after their post race meeting. Up to this point the topic had related to how Lewis was putting manners on Nico, disobeyed team orders and how he had distanced himself from and sembelence between the two. Nico’s opinions seemed to be of little or no importance. In these circumstances something like this was bound to happen. Weak leadership in Mercedes combined with the wild card who is Niki Lauda is making this very difficult to control. The question i have for Lewis, Nico, Toto, Paddy and Niki is do any of you actually think before opening your mouths. A fleeting racing incident has been blown out of proportion.

My take on it is that Nico’s ‘making a point’ stance was related to him sticking to the outside longer than was probably prudent, to see if he could force some space and to show he can’t always be forced to concede. It probably wasn’t the best place or opportunity to do so. When Lewis stuck to the racing line and started to close the gap, Nico steered away from Hamilton, and then (in my opinion) tried to then tuck back in behind Lewis rather than deliberately hit him. Unfortunately he misjudged it and clipped his wing on Lewis’s tire. It was a matter of 6 inches too soon (or at those speeds probably a tenth of a second, at most). Lewis may well have believed Nico’s comment effectively meant Nico deliberately hit him, and Toto’s confirmation that Nico said he was ‘making a point’ but assured us ‘it wasn’t deliberately crashing.That is nonsense.’ I don’t think anyone was lying, and they just took different interpretations of what was said and done.

To the original point, I’m sure there are plenty of professional journalists, like Joe, who do well to avoid national bias in their work, and having one view or another shouldn’t be just dismissed as bias. But there are certainly plenty of journalists and publications (in Britain and other countries) who write whatever sells, and national pride and national outrage often sell copies.

Why is “German coverage of Nico Rosberg is probably more accurate than British coverage”? What a stupid thing to say. Do you even speak German? Were you in the post race Mercedes meeting? Can you compare first hand what was said and what was reported?

Great post Joe,
Judge the drives on their professional qualities and not their passports…

@ Ronny,unfortunately it is impossible to concur with your post. The RTL coverage, which I was watching here in München slated Rosberg. Firstly Christian Danner in the commentary box “what is he thinking,” and then Nikki and Toto stating, in German, that it was 100% Nico’s fault and finally a round of very sticky questions from Kai Ebel in the post race interview with Barbie.
The German press… “Rosberg soll gehirn nutzen / Rosberg should use his brain, Rosberg der Böse, Hamilton das Opfer / Rosberg the evil, Hamilton the victim.
Living here for the past ten or so years, I personally feel that the Germans’ are terrified of nationalism, As soon as one of our Teutonic cousins says that he is proud to be a German the age old adage raises its ugly head in the (usually British) press relating to the unpleasantness that occurred some 75 years ago.
Yes, they bash us Brits with regards to the weather, cuisine and youthful Mallorca antics, but ask them their opinion on some nationalistic issue, and you will be met with a wry smile and a comment about the quality of the sausages that they produce.

We all didn’t think that. Kimi is a natural talent but he’s a million miles off Alonso. We all did think that Vettel was going to destroy Ricciardo but once Seb saw he had no chance of making it 5 in a row some of the fire in his belly went out.

Joe. What is the real feeling in the paddock about Kimi, is he struggling with the car in reality that much. Is it his style or could it be motivation. If the latter why continue next year. I took a punt on a fiver each way this year and could do with informed advice on what seems a daft decision.

But kidding aside, there are people…maybe the journalists you already despise anyway because they are of the bottom feeder variety who give others a bad name in this case as well….commenters are however not always the brightest on some fora/websites. They can display nationalistic behavior either pro Lewis or pro Nico or against…whatever. So I do read enough of commenter on commenter bashing that does has a nationalistic character.

But indeed, I’d except you and other Journalists to be above such a thing. Being proud of a driver who shares your nationality is of course something completely different. 🙂

But attrocities have been commited in the name of both nationalism and patriotism. Unfortunately the world is not yet mature enough to relegate both flawed concepts to history. I prefer to judge drivers by what they do on track.

I did and you should read mine before opting for the quick reply. I agreed with you on nationalism but the difference between patriotism and nationalism is just semantics when it come down to reality. Practically every nationalist i have come accross regarded themselves as being a patriot.

There is a very big difference between a nationalist and a patriot. One is arrogant, and one is willing to fight for their country.
I have never noticed any bias here, except with regards to a certain online F1 blog! LOL

I’m with Barry here. A clumsy racing incident is the best way to sum it up.

That a front-wing touch to a rear-wheel puncture should cause a race-ruining puncture was by no means inevitable – there have been plenty of similar incidents (see the Hockenheim hairpin just a few weeks ago for some prime examples, Mr Hamilton).

For those who wish to denigrate Joe Saward’s journalism as jingoistic, nationalistic ponderings of a Brit… it is inevitable that any writer will suffer from many influences over their writing; it may even come across as bias. However, Joe is one of the most professional writers I’ve ever seen in the arena of F1, and who seems very able to put any undue cultural, linguistic or emotional biases behind him when writing on the subject.

And while there’s intrigue and racing, Joe, keep facing the music and write!

Why make the front wings so razor sharp? May be it’s for a reason…
Perhaps it’s time Formula One was no longer an open wheel racing series.

As for Scottish independence, what the UK really needs is independence from London! The M25 provides the natural border, build a big wall around it and charge people when they exit… sort of a reverse congestion charge.

I do see how the media from a certain country or territory can influence in F1´s case, the fans, viewers, and followers. Here in Spain, they have painted Hamilton as the ultimate enemy and bad guy in F1 in 2007, something that probably also happened to Alonso with the British press.

With that said, my morning coffee is not complete without reading Joe´s blog!!! It is one of the few places to have interesting reads about F1, and where I actually also expand my knowledge each day because of the high quality of its content. I seriously don’t understand why people get so anal about what and how Joe writes.

Thanks Joe, I appreciate your candor on the matter. Sports teams have always mixed geography with team skills. It’s a great way to build city/regional/national pride as well as build a sense of camaraderie for people who may not regularly follow the sport. The downside of course is that it breeds blind loyalty to the home team. The thing is though, sports are governed by sets of rules that are supposed provide the measure by which to judge these sorts of incidents. The frustrating part–as you alluded to earlier, is that if the FIA would have made an official comment to assign blame, or even declare it a racing incident, it would quell a lot of the vitriol that’s spewing across our screens. But because they’ve remained mute, everyone is left to speculate. And we all know how the Internet loves speculation. The whole thing is made worse since the press has been building up the Lewis/Nico friction all season. So now they have their piece of flesh now too. They’ve been loving this story so much that they haven’t had time to write about much else in F1. Given all the F1 management controversy making news over the summer break, maybe that is point all along. Fill the pages with NicoLewpocalpse and distract everyone from FOM’s sausage factory behind the scenes–okay, that was my turn to speculate 😉

Well Joe, as much as I enjoy your normally unbiased articles, there was some “Lewis” bias in your rumblings. Take it with Emanuelle Piro or Christian Horner: “it took us less than 10 seconds”…..”racing incident” – not much too see, except for those taken in by Lewis excessively.

It won’t be the first time a drivers steward has got it wrong, Warwick completely missed Bianchi taking out the side of Kobayashi’s Caterham at Monoco and I still can’t see how Perez was to blame in Canada, it just a job for the boy’s

I am pleased to see this topic being spoken of openly. There is far too much idiot comment about nationalities and nations of drivers, authors, commentators and ordinary reply posts, generalising people with brain dead assumptions and insults. Well done Mr Saward!

One (only one!) of the best articles I’ve read by you Joe. But I’m disappointed by the number of posts crawling out of the woodwork that purport to disagree with you but in the end just prove your point. I’ve had long drink-fuelled discussions with real fans at Silverstone and most consider Alonso a superb driver, most wish that Kimi would/could do better this year, most (at that point) thought Nico was putting up a suprisingly good showing and, again, most were delighted to to see Ricciardo doing well. OK, pretty much everyone wanted to see Hamilton get the title because he looked like a faster driver dogged by bad luck but I’m damned if could see any nationalistic bias.

I,m with you there Peter, in fact a lot of my fellow British F1 fans support drivers other than Hamilton. My personal “pet hate” is comment based on some perceived personality trait of a driver that they have never even met.
I like to read comment from people who have some personal contact with the drivers, thats why I read Joe,s blogg

Good comment from Peter Miles. Motor racing is surely one of the least nationalist sports. Some followers will wrap themselves in the flag, but for the 50-something years that I´ve been watching motor sport, it´s usually been more about the man and the style, than where he was born.

So I´m grateful to Pedro Rodriguez, Rindt, Bandini, Siffert etc who helped appreciate a world beyond Lancashire, as well as to Clark, both Hills, Redman, Elford, etc, whose achievements perhaps I could identify with more easily.

+1! However there is nothing wrong in a driver or a team, having pride in what they do, and how that reflects on their particular country. I don’t get how some people hate the fact that some of those on this planet, have a love and affinity for the country of their birth. There is absolutely nothing wrong in that feeling at all, imho!

I had always enjoyed the lack of nationality issues in F1 business.
Granted, there is a U.K. manufacturing base slant, but you are as likely to find a German, Italian, Dutch or Argentinian there.
It’s a team event not with a country focus.
I thought we flattered ourselves that we supported the best drivers and engineers regardless of where they’re from, ( which is probably Switzerland anyway.)

“I do hate how people bring up the subject of being British in a negative way to further their opinions,” he wrote. “It immediately marks the writer out as none too bright in my opinion.”

I think the fact that “Robert” interestingly ignored was that British (American, Italian, French, German, etc.) fans often engage in quite negative behavior. It is our human nature to be imperfect. Simply because one is of a particular nationality doesn’t necessarily mean that they are model citizens. British fans can be boorish. But, so can Americans and all the rest. And, when they act terribly — as they did at Spa — they deserve to be called on it.

Do you and “Robert” feel as though British fans are, for some reason, above reproach, Joe?

Joe, I think that your reporting on this was absolutely spot on. Some very good analysis and a great explications of how you come to your conclusions.

Many other reporters (would not even call them jounalists), some of the well known, are simply not bright enough or too compromised to come up with a decent analysis of the Rosberg-Hamilton situations and the complex intra team politics. I am fed up aboutreading the words cerebral and heart-on-his-sleeve.

Pathetic accusations of nationalistic bias…these people need to travel more.

“As a journalist one strives, if one has any professional pride, to be as objective as possible, and to cut through the smoke and mirrors to try and tell the story as it is.” This is your quote, unfortunately the way you see it is not necessarily the way it is, it’s just the way you see it. As much as we would like to render blame on someone in this incident it is actually both drivers fault. Lewis new Nico was there, he gave up the racing line before he entered the corner, Nico in fact had the racing line but Lewis was trying to claim it back. Nico’s move was never going to succeed unless Lewis allowed him to take the racing line. He never did that so now its history. The media have made a meal of this, nothing would have been said if this was down the order.

‘As for the post-race issue, interpreting what came out about that internal Mercedes meeting is like reading an email. If you read it in a good mood, you interpret it one way; if you read it in a bad mood, you interpret it another.’

I feel people who are claiming that Lewis is being underhand and calculating regarding his ‘he did it deliberately’ comments are using a personal already-formulated opinion of him to develop this view. I’ve never understood why Lewis can produced such strong hateful emotions in people, but he does, and regardless, it doesn’t change the actual events of the day.

I sense no bias in any of Joe’s writing, just reality. People who already hate Lewis will try and find some means of undermining his actions, but bias in this blog is somewhat poking at straws…

I think it is the same thing that riled the Anti Mansells. I liked the guy, I met him several times and was impressed with his sense of self belief, when everyone else ( Brit media included apart from Peter Windsor ) was saying he was rubbish. He had guts, he had talent and he had an inate engineering ability. Unfortunately he ended up with a team of hangers on, living off him and force feeding a sense of inferiority that was supported by people like Peter Warr. Warr said Mansell would never win a race in F1 as long as he ( Warr ) had a certain anatomically required exhaust system in his body. DSJ went way wrong too, when he said Rindt would never win an F1 race, and the little guy lost his beard over that wrong statement, but I digress, Nigel was a truly great driver, unlucky at times, but probably the only bloke out there who could mix and match with Senna on any given day, and who didn’t give one for Senna’s attitude to racing.
Anyway, although Nige was a great driver, his status in F1 was very much love/hate, and sadly, Nige didn’t help this by whinging a lot, instead of gritting his teeth and saying nothing, which would have gone down better with his fans and detractors!
Lewis is very much the same, blindingly quick, forceful, at times hugely entertaining and admired, and then he says or does something that grates, and everyone comes down on him like a tonne of bricks!
Like Nige, Lewis would do better to say less and let his driving do the talking, that way his detractors would realise what a great talent he has and he would have much less bad press.

By the by, this has nothing to do with national bias.
There is a section of people that with malicious, venomous hatred of a certain driver will use every mental fall back position they can think of to explain away every positive move he makes and to attack in the most insidious ways very step out of line. These people are quite mad.

I don’t see anything wrong with a bit of being patriotic: football, rugby and cricket’s World Cups wouldn’t exist without it. However, when it comes to wars, etc, that’s where it feels distinctly uncomfortable or just plain wrong. But let’s be honest, in sport (and on a personal level) we all like a team in white hats and a team in black hats. All a bit of pantomime fun, booing the supposed villan.

However, Nico’s comments (and some others on here) definitely speak more about the issuers than the subject. The comments about the British were derogatory and without any basis. Vettel got boo’d all over the place after the multi 21 fiasco; I doubt there are that many Brits at every Grand Prix. Plenty of neutrals were involved in that. So where did Nico get his facts from? If the roles had been reversed (i.e. Lewis had hit Nico and punctured his tyre) I’d have jeered Lewis.

However, the reason I come here is, whether I agree or disagree with his conclusions, I find Joe to be balanced and informative. It’s all good, nothing bad. If people think Joe is biased to the Brits, I’d suggest they go back and read through some of his previous articles. They may open your eyes.

You can try and defend all you like and call people “not too bright” but it is a common feeling among non-british nationalities of the putrid that is spewed out on channels like BBC and SKY Sports. Have you heard Brundle and Crofty .. have you ever statistically evaluated the mention of a British driver on a British driver versus a driver of another nationality.

When you are passionate about a sport or a driver it is hard to stay neutral. I am not saying you are biased; i think in most cases your articles are fair and balanced; but the context can very easily be twisted and convoluted as demonstrated by Lewis in the latest saga.

After the Singapore GP, Brundle comments – the tweets on Rosberg car being meddled around to help Hamilton should stop. The same group of commentators was promoting the notion that Hamilton’s car was experiencing problems because it is a British driver lined up against a German driver in a German team.

And what makes you think you are cleverer than clever people? You could be a mud-covered peasant for all we know. If you had achieved something in F1 perhaps people might listen. So come out, reveal yourself to be something other than a mud-covered peasant and ma he people will respect your view. In the meantime don’t be rude.

I’m seeing more and more tabloid style click loving headlines these days in F1 websites and many of them throw a nationality in there casually to inflame things. It’s become a bit depressing. Almost stopped reading some sites because of it, visit them once in a while now instead of daily or weekly. Sometimes difficult to tell the real articles from the conjecture-presented-as-fact rubbish.

Thank you for these wonderful quotations about nationalism. I’ve resisted it all my life, and now I can explain why! It annoys me when it is assumed that I must support Lewis and should not support someone of another nationality.